Friday, March 07, 2008

Have you ever noticed how similar the rhetoric of sex offender activists and pedophile activists is?

I have. I've noticed it a lot.

Of particular interest is their mutual desire to abolish age of consent laws. We don't need to ask why, we know why, don't we? Instead, let's talk about their reasoning.

On the one hand you have the pedophile group who say that children should be able to make their own decisions. We have Unico who says:

"There exist sexually-active 4-year-old girls who enjoy vaginal intercourse. What you or I think, is irrelevant to that fact.

Even first-time vaginal intercourse can be enjoyable, when preceded by several months of stretching

Anybody who would obstruct a prepubescent person from her inherent right to choose to have sexual intercourse is neither a true youth liberationist nor human rights advocate.

Access to sex education specific to prepubescent people should be mandated."

And here we have Lindsay Ashford being interviewed on the radio. What does he say about that issue?

Scott: Do you think that a 5 year old grasps what's going on well enough to be able to consent to sexual activity?

Lindsay: A 5 year old understands friendship. A 5 year old understands affection.

Scott: So can a 2 year old?

Lindsay: A 2 year old understands pleasure.

Scott: So they can consent to sex?

Lindsay: They can consent to pleasurable activity

Scott: Can a 6 month old do that?

Lindsay: I'm sure that 6 months old also have nerve endings and understanding and an understanding of what is pleasurable to them, yes

Scott: So a 6 month old can consent to sex

Lindsay: A 6 month old can consent to activity that it finds pleasurable

What does the petition we've talked so much about say? The one Jan Kruska and so many of her activist associates signed?

"Support broad sex education for children, and empower them to make their own decisions and stand up for their rights"

It then goes on to define 'children'

"Children should be defined as persons under the age of puberty."

And yes, many RSO activists signed it. So where do you draw the line? As far as age of consent goes? Is it 18? 16? 14? And with the age of consent law in place whatever that age is, what do you do when someone breaks that law? Slap them on the wrist? What I DO know for sure, is that the activists who are pushing for abolishment of age of consent laws and abolishment of punishment and registration for sex offenders were NOT convicted of having teenaged consensual sex. Their crimes were far worse than that and they are further exploiting children by trying to argue that the very RARE case of teenagers who end up on the registry is representative of their entire population. The vast majority of teens who find themselves convicted of a crime are not on the registry because of a consensual act. They may be listed as statutory rape, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it was a plea deal that gave them that listing.

Furthermore, if the crime was a felony charge, and the offender plead guilty and accepted a plea deal reducing the conviction on the books to a misdemeanor. Does that mean their crime was less than when they committed it? Absolutely not. The actual crime remains the same, but their legal maneuver reduced their penalty.

Let's look at an example of the propaganda. Jan Kruska said last year on a podcast with Tom Madison, that 95% of those on the registry are not dangerous people. She says they were convicted for things such as drunken mooning, or children "playing doctor". Does anyone know where she got this made up "fact"? Or how about Tim from Sosen, who says that 73% of all offenders on the sex offender registry committed their crimes against someone who was over the age of 18, while the fact is that 87% of victims were UNDER the age of 18. Why does Tim say that 40% of offenders were under the age of 18 upon conviction while the true number is that less than 10% were minors? Why would these people lie to you in an attempt to bring about social change?

Here are a couple of things you can do besides just hit and miss searching on a registry. Go to the Illinois sex offender registry and download it in entirely into an Excel document. Sort and resort by the information that's on there. Say for example the age of the offender at the time of conviction along with the age of the victim. It's quite interesting. Did you know that the average age at conviction was mid thirties?

Georgia is another state that allows you to download their registry although it doesn't list the age of the victim. What you'll find is that the average age at conviction was 32 years old. You'll also find that less than 10% of those registered in Georgia were under the age of 20 at conviction. And in fact, at the present time in Georgia there are only 39 offenders under the age of 20. Even more interesting is the fact that 4 months ago there were a total of 70 teenaged sex offenders in Georgia. If these new laws are soooooo "draconian", if they are sooooo over broad, why is that number going DOWN instead of UP?

It's because it's not true what they say. It's also not true when they say their primary interest is child safety, and a desire for the laws to be 'effective'. The real truth is they are all pissed off sex offenders who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. Tom Madison proved that when he rallied to gain support for releasing violent repeat sexual predators from their court imposed civil commitment. His primary interest was certainly not safety, his concern was the sex offenders wasting their time and the cost to non-sex offenders. LOL Well he DID say that after all.

And let us not forget one of the ring leaders of the RSO activists. Jim Freeman, co-founder and executive director of SoHopeful. Read more about that HERE, read also how Cheryl Griffith tried to cover it up.

And while you're at it, read what Dr. Gene Abel had to say from a study he did which included 16,109 adults who admitted sexually molesting at least one child.

40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.

There may be innocent people imprisoned for murder who truly are innocent. But we don't lobby to abolish all laws regarding murder as a result. The same is true for sex offenders. ***IF*** these activists motives were truly about teenagers, THAT is what they would be addressing. But they are only further exploiting kids to further their own agenda. Very, very few teenagers are convicted for having consensual sex, it is rare, and it is the exception. But adults convicted for manipulating young teens is far too common. We understand this completely. They don't.

Have you ever noticed how similar the rhetoric of sex offender activists and pedophile activists is?

I have. I've noticed it a lot.

Of particular interest is their mutual desire to abolish age of consent laws. We don't need to ask why, we know why, don't we? Instead, let's talk about their reasoning.

On the one hand you have the pedophile group who say that children should be able to make their own decisions. We have Unico who says:

"There exist sexually-active 4-year-old girls who enjoy vaginal intercourse. What you or I think, is irrelevant to that fact.

Even first-time vaginal intercourse can be enjoyable, when preceded by several months of stretching

Anybody who would obstruct a prepubescent person from her inherent right to choose to have sexual intercourse is neither a true youth liberationist nor human rights advocate.

Access to sex education specific to prepubescent people should be mandated."

And here we have Lindsay Ashford being interviewed on the radio. What does he say about that issue?

Scott: Do you think that a 5 year old grasps what's going on well enough to be able to consent to sexual activity?

Lindsay: A 5 year old understands friendship. A 5 year old understands affection.

Scott: So can a 2 year old?

Lindsay: A 2 year old understands pleasure.

Scott: So they can consent to sex?

Lindsay: They can consent to pleasurable activity

Scott: Can a 6 month old do that?

Lindsay: I'm sure that 6 months old also have nerve endings and understanding and an understanding of what is pleasurable to them, yes

Scott: So a 6 month old can consent to sex

Lindsay: A 6 month old can consent to activity that it finds pleasurable

What does the petition we've talked so much about say? The one Jan Kruska and so many of her activist associates signed?

"Support broad sex education for children, and empower them to make their own decisions and stand up for their rights"

It then goes on to define 'children'

"Children should be defined as persons under the age of puberty."

And yes, many RSO activists signed it. So where do you draw the line? As far as age of consent goes? Is it 18? 16? 14? And with the age of consent law in place whatever that age is, what do you do when someone breaks that law? Slap them on the wrist? What I DO know for sure, is that the activists who are pushing for abolishment of age of consent laws and abolishment of punishment and registration for sex offenders were NOT convicted of having teenaged consensual sex. Their crimes were far worse than that and they are further exploiting children by trying to argue that the very RARE case of teenagers who end up on the registry is representative of their entire population. The vast majority of teens who find themselves convicted of a crime are not on the registry because of a consensual act. They may be listed as statutory rape, but you can bet your bottom dollar that it was a plea deal that gave them that listing.

Furthermore, if the crime was a felony charge, and the offender plead guilty and accepted a plea deal reducing the conviction on the books to a misdemeanor. Does that mean their crime was less than when they committed it? Absolutely not. The actual crime remains the same, but their legal maneuver reduced their penalty.

Let's look at an example of the propaganda. Jan Kruska said last year on a podcast with Tom Madison, that 95% of those on the registry are not dangerous people. She says they were convicted for things such as drunken mooning, or children "playing doctor". Does anyone know where she got this made up "fact"? Or how about Tim from Sosen, who says that 73% of all offenders on the sex offender registry committed their crimes against someone who was over the age of 18, while the fact is that 87% of victims were UNDER the age of 18. Why does Tim say that 40% of offenders were under the age of 18 upon conviction while the true number is that less than 10% were minors? Why would these people lie to you in an attempt to bring about social change?

Here are a couple of things you can do besides just hit and miss searching on a registry. Go to the Illinois sex offender registry and download it in entirely into an Excel document. Sort and resort by the information that's on there. Say for example the age of the offender at the time of conviction along with the age of the victim. It's quite interesting. Did you know that the average age at conviction was mid thirties?

Georgia is another state that allows you to download their registry although it doesn't list the age of the victim. What you'll find is that the average age at conviction was 32 years old. You'll also find that less than 10% of those registered in Georgia were under the age of 20 at conviction. And in fact, at the present time in Georgia there are only 39 offenders under the age of 20. Even more interesting is the fact that 4 months ago there were a total of 70 teenaged sex offenders in Georgia. If these new laws are soooooo "draconian", if they are sooooo over broad, why is that number going DOWN instead of UP?

It's because it's not true what they say. It's also not true when they say their primary interest is child safety, and a desire for the laws to be 'effective'. The real truth is they are all pissed off sex offenders who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. Tom Madison proved that when he rallied to gain support for releasing violent repeat sexual predators from their court imposed civil commitment. His primary interest was certainly not safety, his concern was the sex offenders wasting their time and the cost to non-sex offenders. LOL Well he DID say that after all.

And let us not forget one of the ring leaders of the RSO activists. Jim Freeman, co-founder and executive director of SoHopeful. Read more about that HERE, read also how Cheryl Griffith tried to cover it up.

And while you're at it, read what Dr. Gene Abel had to say from a study he did which included 16,109 adults who admitted sexually molesting at least one child.

40% of child molesters, who were later diagnosed as having pedophilia, had molested a child by the time they were 15 years old. An estimated 88% of child molesters and 95% of molestations (one person, multiple acts) are committed by individuals who now or in the future will also meet criteria for pedophilia. Pedophilic child molesters on average commit 10 times more sexual acts against children than nonpedophilic child molesters.

There may be innocent people imprisoned for murder who truly are innocent. But we don't lobby to abolish all laws regarding murder as a result. The same is true for sex offenders. ***IF*** these activists motives were truly about teenagers, THAT is what they would be addressing. But they are only further exploiting kids to further their own agenda. Very, very few teenagers are convicted for having consensual sex, it is rare, and it is the exception. But adults convicted for manipulating young teens is far too common. We understand this completely. They don't.

About

A community of individuals pledged to fight paedophiles on the web. We are committed to the safety and emotional well-being of all children. This site will serve as a resource for those committed to our fight wherever you may be in the world.